Posted on 11/15/2005 5:51:44 AM PST by Red6
Unnoticed by the public the fight for control of the only allegedly anarchischen InterNet escalates far away. The fronts are clear: the USA against the remainder of the world. With the information summit in Tunis this week hard arguments are approaching.
Who travels in these days after Tunesien, already in the airport terminal by Postern and posters with strange abbreviations one welcomes. The "gate to the Orient", admits spectacular excavation places and Kamel-safari, welcomed on it proudly and wide the participants of the "WSIS 2005", for the beaches by Djerba or Monastir, for its the world summit of the information society. That will meet after preparations for many years from Wednesday in Tunis, in order to clarify a few basic questions of the global information society.
To the diplomatic conference the United Nations invited. They count stuff "of the capital in the" Parc exposition you on more than 10,000 participants from at least 120 countries from Australia to Cyprus, among them approximately 50 state and heads of the government, high-ranking emissaries from the economy as well as numerous representatives of federations and of Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NGOs). As highest-ranking ringrichter becomes the actual summit host journeys: UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Moderating voices will be urgently necessary. Already in the apron of the class meeting of the global info. elite, which itself in the past three years with questions of Cyberkriminalitaet over the Spam problem and the mental property up to the open entrance to the InterNet busy, it came to the eclat: In one of the central future questions for 21. The positions of the crucial participants are appropriate for century briefly before the summit despite all diplomatic efforts as far apart as rarely before. The core of the conflict is as simple as explosive: It concerns the topic of the "InterNet Governance" - thus simply around it, which in the future the crucial resources of the fascinating of global network controlled, in which meanwhile a billion dispatch user enamel approximately, for information look for, buy, play, chatten or telephone.
For the USA the case is clear, it votieren, already from tradition, for the only power, which they really trust: - and explained themselves this position in October as security already times as "not negotiatable". This again finds a large and quite heterogeneous alliance absolutely not acceptable. It reaches from China and Iran over Brazil and South Africa to the European Union, and that is new. Before two years the Europeans their American friends still the backs strengthened. Now also Brussels more say for the international community of states and an end of the American hegemony requires over the Cyberspace. "the 25 European Union nations demand unanimously a new co-operation model for the InterNet, with which all interested countries sit, say at a table" European Union clerk sarin Viviane Reding, which travels as a negotiation guide of the commission after Tunis. Beyond the Atlantiks one reacts to the requirements as frightened as come to a hold: Under any circumstances, the Bush administration did not mention, one without its lifted out historical role will do. Even the influential magazine "Foreign Affairs" criticizes the US position in its current expenditure violently. Makes? Control? Governance? Does it concern the InterNet, that anarchischen, not to adjusting virtual widths? The conception is still common, very romantically, only unfortunately quite far from the reality. In the initial years, as above all university graduates the Auslaeufer of the originally above all militarily used Arpanets removals, may have still rather informally happened it - over decades was with the rauschebaertigen Computer-guru Jon Postel up to its death 1998 actually an individual man for the central technical standards responsible. Meanwhile there are two billion InterNet addresses - and the net became the critical factor for the world economy, but does not long only play also in education, culture and science a role hardly which can be overrated. Already today business constitutes scarcely nine per cent of the entire world trade in, with and over the InterNet.
With the commercialization and rapid propagation of the net also the political Begehrlichkeiten grew. The Clinton administration created 1998 an Non profit organization under private law named InterNet corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, briefly Icann, which resides in the California Marina del Rey and is closely connected with the US Ministry of Trade by important contracts.
This central InterNet administration is today the culmination point for the international criticism. Only it has the authority to insert new Top level Domains like "eu" and to make the necessary changes in the 13 so-called root servers - those large computers, which translate among other things recognizable InterNet addresses like www.spiegel.de into bulky number sequences like 195.71.11.67. Theoretically the US Ministry of Trade can switch an ending off simply and fall so for instance members of the "axle of the bad one" into the kommunikative chaos, argued now the front of the opponents. Already in the beginnings of Icann the Americans tried to remedy their obvious authentication problem a little by furnishing a consulting committee for governments, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). More than are there in the meantime represented - however evenly only advising hundred states, without voice in the crucial director circle. In the case of doubt, the net expert says Wolfgang small guard of the University of Aarhus, quite made the USA of its dominance for use. Recently they prevented for instance the ending "xxx", because ore-conservative US organizations had run against the Sex Domain storm. Many important decisions in the sense of the USA and their powerful net economy actually fall. For example the US enterprise Verisign, which controls the most common ending "com". Recently its control of the Domain "net" ran out and was again written out. Result: Despite a strong applicant field it landed then again at the US company. Already with the forerunner summit enormous annoyance appeared 2003 in Geneva in the supervision question, on which the UN furnished a special working group: the Working Group on InterNet Governance. Those could nevertheless inform itself on a definition and sketched four possible models for the future. The taper of the conflict in the apron of Tunis could not prevent it however.
The conceptions of the countries involved go naturally far apart: China and Iran, both regime, which filter and censor their nets radical, favor models with large sovereign government rights - a horror scenario for the net municipality. Others favor a thing under UN responsibility, for which also a model exists: The international telecommunications union (International Telecommunication Union) administers and regulates the land preselections like "0049". One is in the best way suitable and the job gladly would take over, mentioned the International Telecommunication Union boss already several times. The refusal of the USA came promptly: "we will not permit that the United Nations take over the management of the InterNet", rumbled the chief negotiator of the US State Department, David large. The fronts are accordingly hardened. Even the threat to develop alternative own island TZE is located in the area - the end of the idea of a World Wide Web most optimistically gives itself still the German delegation leader, the world economy-summit-experienced undersecretary of state Bernd Pfaff brook, that those approximately 70koepfige German delegation states and "one Compromise within the range of the possible one "sees. One seems actual to move also with Icann. "we control and do not govern the net not, we coordinate it only", say Icann Managerin Theresa Swinehart, in order to grant directly: "there is hardly a system, to improve would not leave itself." On Thursday Icann stated the will, with the governments advising so far "more effectively to cooperate". Then alleged plans of the US Ministry of Trade became admit to write important Icann functions out after running out the current contracts 2006 - which however, as the example "net" shows, not yet much must be called. Particularly with the Nichtregierungsorganisationen the grind is large. The origin topic of the conference of UN, the digital gap between poor and rich states and their bypass by a "digital solidarity fund", moved complete into the background. The question of control from the weekend on in an additionally fixed before Gipfelchen one negotiates, essentially of the club of the usual powerful ones. Almost grotesque is besides the choice of the summit place: Amnesty international did not criticize already on the occasion of a Vortreffens, in Tunesien is "pressefreiheit practically available". The regime of president Ben Ali has repeats the entrance to unpleasant InterNet sides blocked. All that is to be brought up for discussion now on a "citizen summit". That does not seem welcome however: The hotel, in which it should take place, called the areas off booked for a long time again. Similar passed end of previous week of the German Heinrich Boell donation, which wanted to meet in a theatre with a Tunisian NGO - alleged reason for the blown off meeting: "safety reasons".
Little discussion of who "invented it".
Little discussion of who "paid" for building it's backbone.
After we invent and pay for it, the European socialist will expect us hand it over to their control in part.
I have an idea. If they don’t like it why don’t they build their own with massive subsidies. The EU could build its own Internet agency based in Brussels and hire thousands of bureaucrats to manage it.
However, in good German socialist tradition the author did use words like "hegemony", and talked about "world dominance". I was waiting for the “Bush-Cowboy” statement.
There is no discussion here. We invented it and we paid for it largely. People all over the world are riding on our idea and doing so cheaply in part thanks to the AMERICAN tax payer. Be grateful and "shut up".
Red6
If they don't like the internet, they don't have to use it. Or, they can build their own.
Absolutely correct. I suggest they build an "EUnet" and a UNnet", let them run it and do whatever the hell they want with it.
Oh yeah, no need for them to thank those of us who have actually built and fixed ISPs in those third-world backwaters.
BOTTOM LINE:
This POS named Kofi Annan is looking for a Mafia style skim. Some kind of way the UN can get operating expenses out of the internet. A tax to pay for an expanded force of blue helmet UN troops is the grand plan.
The internet is doing great except for security problems. Kofi's plan will make the internet FUBAR.
So that's what this is all about? The EU doesn't like the way the US is censoring pornography on the internet. Sure... That seems like a reason for them to nationalize the internet under European control.
I concur. However, I must say I admire your tenacity in getting through this article. I tried, but I stopped because it made my hair hurt!
I suggest we export Algore to Europe and he can invent one for their very own.
"We built, we paid for it, it's ours."
The more important question is why do they want control?
It's not like they can show they have been harmed by control being in it's current hands.
They either want control to be able to leverage that control, which is definately against our interests, or even more likely they want control to tax it.
Do you really think domain names would remain inexpensive in the hands of the UN? DO you think that there would remain a flat fee for domain names, or do you think we'd end up with some form of "progressive" fees where large corporations pay millions for their domains?
The UN doesn't handle anything well.
They are unable or unwilling to deal with the widespread corruption in their ranks. They should be defunded by the US unless they find a way to clean house.
They should not under any circumstances be given control over domain names. Not now, not if they clean house some, never!
World Domination, eh? Since the world is so clearly better off with the net than without, is W.D. really all that bad?
Imagine if JF'nK had won the last election. He would want to make sure our internet passed the "global test." People have to remember things like that at election time. Do you want some global board with chairmembers like Libya, North Korea, and Cuba deciding if FR, or Fox News gets server space? No thank you. I like the idea of an alternate UNternet for all your bureaucratic, internet taxing, info suppressing needs.
Absolutely correct. I suggest they build an "EUnet" and a UNnet", let them run it and do whatever the hell they want with it.
Great Point........these parasites could not maintain the internet for any length of time, let alone develop one.
Just like the UN, America is tired of supporting a bunch of worthless parasites and being critized for not giving enough. I believe it is time to show the world how little we do need them.
As I see it this issue has three angles.
Control and power gains by the UN. The UN is a bureaucracy that wants to grow. They are hungry and try to grab up everything they can. Even our DoD Tsunami efforts were in part criticized by them since "THEY" wanted the control. Yes, they actually attacked our efforts in reality because they didn’t have the control. For the UN this is just one more thing where they could gain power, money, and influence. The UN has turned into a beast of its own.
The EU, combined with Russia, China, and others would like to get something for nothing. If we are so stupid to give it away for nothing than then we deserve to get pulled over the table. Fact is we had the idea and paid for it. But in the end it's politics and polemics which drive the decision of who has control over it. If they can get the MSM to pound their story (Which in Europe is the case) they win. Already now with stories like this you will “paint a picture” as they did with the Iraq war. There is a monetary aspect to this as well at this point. They don’t care about the US tax payer who built the original backbone, who paid for the R&D within the DoD. They are pure self interest motivated and if we are so stupid to give it up for free then I guess we deserve what we get.
It’s a “reign in the US” issue by many. The US is militarily, economically, scientifically and politically THE super power out there. Our lead is near grotesque in many aspects. Many like France try over and over to limit the span of influence we have through international organizations. The idea is that while France has no real say, if they can tie us down in the UN they can actually tell us what to do! This is just one more example of where the US is a leader globally. Where we have power and influence and where some would like to reign us in. If the UN controls this then France has a say over it.
Red6
"It’s a “reign in the US” issue by many. The US is militarily, economically, scientifically and politically THE super power out there. Our lead is near grotesque in many aspects."
This is the key. Remember the jokes about Bush-Gore election lawsuits in 2000? In the US it is considered a political ploy by Democrats, but once outside the United States the whole thing has an entirely different connotation. See what this (largely postmodern leftist) expat Aussie living in the US said back in 2001:
http://www.aussieinamerica.com/expatriate/revocation.htm
"I think most Americans truly underestimate, or are even oblivious to the impact the USA has on the rest of the world. For example, in the build up to the election I don't recall any foreign policy issues coming up as election issues. Now that I have had the experience of reacting to American current affairs as a local, rather than a "foreigner", I have more empathetic understanding for how this can be. The impact of the U.S. economy, culture and politics on other countries just does not feature in the daily lives of most Americans."
Note the lady was originally from Melbourne, which by Australian standards, is a bit like the equivalent of Seattle/Chicago/Boston combined. Add to it she writes about cultural matters, so it is not a surprise she leans left and I'm quite sure she's to the left of mainstream Australia.
This is the problem. When you live in vincinity to a country that influences a lot of what you do, what you eat, how you dress, has an important influence to your economy and politics, many people start to have an illusion that it is actually running your life as well. (I would say the situation in East Asia is special. There Hollywood influence is basically on the wane - in Hong Kong for instance Hollywood movies or American TV series are actually becoming less watched. What replaced them? Japanese and Korean TV series. The younger generation has got mroe Japanese/Korean influence than direct American influence in how they dress and eat as well). This is pure jealousy sure.
Try as I may, I can't think of ONE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.